jhuntii
asked on
CPU recommendations for low-end server
Hello all:
I am quoting out a new server for a client. They currently don't have a server at all, but they want to use Medisoft medical software in a multi-user environment (2-3 users at once for now) and they recommend loading it onto a real server. I received two entry-level server quotes from two different vendors - one quoted an Intel dual core 3.0 GHz, 2x1M, 800 MHz on an Intel 945 motherboard. The other quoted an Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz, 4 MB, 1066 MHz on an Intel DG965WHM motherboard. I plan to go with 2 GB RAM and mirrored 320 GB drives (RAID1). Software will be Windows 2003 server, probably small business server.
My question is, which is better, the dual core or the core 2 duo for a server environment? (Any other comments and suggestions also welcome.)
Thanks,
Jon
I am quoting out a new server for a client. They currently don't have a server at all, but they want to use Medisoft medical software in a multi-user environment (2-3 users at once for now) and they recommend loading it onto a real server. I received two entry-level server quotes from two different vendors - one quoted an Intel dual core 3.0 GHz, 2x1M, 800 MHz on an Intel 945 motherboard. The other quoted an Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 2.13 GHz, 4 MB, 1066 MHz on an Intel DG965WHM motherboard. I plan to go with 2 GB RAM and mirrored 320 GB drives (RAID1). Software will be Windows 2003 server, probably small business server.
My question is, which is better, the dual core or the core 2 duo for a server environment? (Any other comments and suggestions also welcome.)
Thanks,
Jon
Lee W, MVP
Frankly, I'd probably go with the Core 2 Duo with an eye on upgrading much later on if necessary.
I will defenatly go with Intel dual core 3.0 GHz. more CPU power. it has 4MB cache.
by the way; the Core™2 Duo Processor E6400 comes with 2MB L2 cash only. you probably would like to check that out.
check the following URL:
http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=884352,878542&familyID=1&culture=en-US
by the way; the Core™2 Duo Processor E6400 comes with 2MB L2 cash only. you probably would like to check that out.
check the following URL:
http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=884352,878542&familyID=1&culture=en-US
tellawi - read his post - he said the quote on the Dual Core 3.0 was a 2x1MB Cache - not a 2x2MB cache as you have in your link.
The core 2 duo uses newer technology including a faster bus, less power (if I'm not mistaken), and in the long term should have a better upside.
Remember, it's not about raw MHz now.
The core 2 duo uses newer technology including a faster bus, less power (if I'm not mistaken), and in the long term should have a better upside.
Remember, it's not about raw MHz now.
This article shows that an E6400 Core2 Duo will surpass a Pentium-D 3.0: http://www.behardware.com/articles/623-1/intel-core-2-duo-test.html It will also use less power than the Pentium-D.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Gary, if you're running SBS Premium 2GB is probably the minimum you want. If you run SBS standard, then you have to look at the other applications - 1 GB should be considered minimum for an SBS standard system with Exchange and MSDE databases installed (which they should be).
Agree ... my point was simply that with a desktop board that does not support buffered memory (or even ECC for that matter) the reliability is notably improved if you only install 2 memory modules.
ASKER
Excellent! This is exactly what I was looking for. I think I may go with the E6300 and look into getting some gigabit cards are a switch. Also, I had not heard about limiting to two sticks of RAM with non-ECC/buffered memory. One more note - I was planning to use a Travan tape drive 20/40 GB for backups. Are tapes still the way to go or is there a better overall solution (swappable hard drives, backup to other PC's, Internet/Online backups??)
Thanks,
Jon
Thanks,
Jon
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
leew's writeup is a good overview of backup options ... the bottom line is that tape is still the best archival backup; but there are disk-based alternatives that are good near-term backups. If the size of a Travan tape is large enough for your needs, they're an excellent choice ... especially since they're so easy to transport for off-site backups. Internet/online backups are another good off-site choice ... IF you (a) use a reliable company and (b) have a sufficiently high bandwidth upload speed on your internet connection (depends on the volume of new data how fast that needs to be).
Gary reviewed my writeup (as did a few others) prior to my posting the link to others...
To be clear, what I *believe* Gary means (and how I interpret it) -
archival - when you need to keep backups for LONG periods of time (due to government regulations or other reasons).
near-term - when you can overwirte backups after a couple of weeks to a couple of months and there's no need for long term storage.
If you don't need long term storage, I DO NOT recommend tape - unless you have over 300 GB to backup during your fulls.
To be clear, what I *believe* Gary means (and how I interpret it) -
archival - when you need to keep backups for LONG periods of time (due to government regulations or other reasons).
near-term - when you can overwirte backups after a couple of weeks to a couple of months and there's no need for long term storage.
If you don't need long term storage, I DO NOT recommend tape - unless you have over 300 GB to backup during your fulls.
ASKER
Sounds good. Thanks everyone for all the great advice! :)